Case Detail
Case Title | LEOPOLD v. NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY et al | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
District | District of Columbia | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
City | Washington, DC | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Number | 1:2014cv00805 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Filed | 2014-05-14 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Date Closed | 2017-03-01 | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Judge | Judge Tanya S. Chutkan | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Plaintiff | JASON LEOPOLD | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Case Description | Jason Leopold submitted a request to the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department for records pertaining to the propriety of surveilling federal and state judges. Leopold also asked for a fee waiver. OLC responded by telling Leopold that it had no records. Leopold then filed an administrative appeal. Leopold also sent a request to the National Security Agency for records providing guidance or policies pertaining to the propriety of surveilling federal or state judges. He also asked for a fee waiver. The agency acknowledged receipt of his request, but after hearing nothing further from either agency, Leopold filed suit. Complaint issues: Failure to respond within statutory time limit | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defendant | NATIONAL SECURITY AGENCY | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Defendant | DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Documents | Docket Complaint Complaint attachment 1 Complaint attachment 2 Complaint attachment 3 Complaint attachment 4 Opinion/Order [11] FOIA Project Annotation: Although she expressed doubt that the agencies would find anything more, Judge Tanya Chutkan has ordered the NSA and the Justice Department's Office of Legal Counsel to conduct further searches for records concerning surveillance of federal or state judges. Journalist Jason Leopold sent similar requests to both the NSA and OLC. In his request to the NSA, Leopold asked for policies, memoranda, training materials and guidance concerning the propriety of surveilling judges. In his request to OLC, Leopold asked for "any and all memoranda and legal opinions" about the propriety of surveilling judges. Both agencies said they could find no records. The NSA searched its Office of General Counsel and its Signals Intelligence Office of Policy and Corporate Issues. Leopold argued the agency should have searched for emails because he had requested such a search. But Chutkan pointed out that "it was reasonable for NSA to determine that an email search was unlikely to uncover responsive records, especially given that other databases were available that specifically compiled policies, memoranda, training materials and guidance." He also contended that the agency should have searched another database as well, particularly since it had located a directive of interest that came from that database. Siding with Leopold, Chutkan noted that "given that NSA itself identified a directive 'of interest' but failed to explain why it did not search for other directives, and because Leopold has identified a particular source of records which may hold responsive documents, NSA is ordered to conduct a search of the United State Intelligence Directive System and disclose responsive documents, if any, or claim an exemption." Turning to OLC's claims, Chutkan observed that Leopold had asked for all memoranda and OLC had only searched final legal opinions and memoranda. She indicated that "the court is persuaded that 'any and all memoranda and legal opinions' means exactly what it says�"any and all, meaning drafts and final product. OLC has not provided any persuasive justification regarding why it did not search for drafts, and is therefore ordered to reprocess Leopold's request and conduct a search for draft memoranda and legal opinions." But Leopold's description worked against him when he claimed OLC should have searched for letters and other records. This time Chutkan explained that "once again, the court is persuaded that 'any and all memoranda and legal opinions,' the terms Leopold chose to use in his request, mean exactly what they say�"memoranda and legal opinions, and not any other types of records." Leopold contended OLC should be required to indicate how many non-responsive records it found in its search. Chutkan observed that "while FOIA cases are not typically concerned with non-responsive documents, here, because Leopold's request is narrow and he has identified a specific document that would likely have been captured by the search terms, the court will require OLC to indicate whether it located no records at all, or located some records that were deemed non-responsive." Chutkan indicated, however, that "OLC is under no obligation to produce non-responsive documents if any exist. But on the particular facts of this case, it will be helpful to know whether any records were found or not."
Opinion/Order [20]Issues: Search - Reasonableness of search FOIA Project Annotation: Judge Tanya Chutkan has ruled that the Office of Legal Counsel at the Justice Department must conduct a search of email accounts of departed OLC attorneys for draft memoranda and legal opinions related to surveillance of federal and state judges. In response to reporter Jason Leopold's request for records going back to 1933, OLC had consulted several senior attorneys who indicated they were unaware of any legal analysis of surveilling judges. As a result, OLC asked for summary judgment. Chutkan agreed with Leopold that OLC's consultation with the senior attorneys was not sufficient to show it had conducted an adequate search. Chutkan pointed out that "despite the long tenures of the two senior OLC attorneys who were asked about potentially responsive records, and their familiarity with OLC's work on national security and surveillance matters, merely asking these two individuals about their personal knowledge does not, in the court's view, sufficiently demonstrate that responsive documents do not exist or would not be found by a more in-depth search." Rejecting Leopold's request that OLC be required to conduct a broader search as too burdensome, Chutkan agreed that a search of the email accounts of departed attorneys was feasible. She noted that "given that these emails and their attachments can be searched using an eDiscovery tool without needing to open each email and its attachments individually, and in the absence of any representation from [the agency] regarding the burden associated with running such searches separate and apart from searching OLC's paper files and hard drives, Defendants have not demonstrated that doing so would constitute an undue burden." Chutkan indicated that "the burden of the email search to be conducted here can nonetheless certainly be minimized by well-crafted search terms and reasonable limitations on dates and custodians." She noted that "the court is also hopeful that the parties can further limit the number of custodians whose emails will need to be searched by excluding attorneys who worked in areas where the topic of surveilling federal and state judges would not have arisen." She added that "an email-only search would, by definition, be limited to attorneys who have worked at OLC since the advent of email, whereas searches of emails, paper files, and hard drives would presumably go back much further, and thereby encompass more custodians."
Issues: Adequacy - Search | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
User-contributed Documents | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Docket Events (Hide) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|